I think its just the fact that it was the first skyscraper built outside of Canary Wharf for about 30 years and the first ever skyscraper in London that wasn't a simple box. I love the design and it is one of my favorite buildings but people (and the media, it seems) always bring this up in skyscraper discussions. I'd say its more well known then London's traditional tallest, 1 Canada Square.

The Shard in London is overrated to me. I know it will be the tallest in London but the large open parapet on top looks dumb and contributes to a "fake" height to the building. Roof height is what matters and The Shard is clearly less than 1,000 feet to roof height.

The Gherkin is a much more beautiful building in London and is a better landmark in my opinion.

I know a lot of people will disagree with me but to me The Shard is definitely overrated.

The new 1WTC for me because it's a crappy replacement for the twin towers. Also it's taking forever and it just looks stoopid. Now if they built taller replacements/replicas of the former twin towers on the footprints and call this tower 3WTC then I might like it better.

It's still hard to look at NYC's skyline without the twin towers. Almost like knocking the Eiffel Tower down to me.

1 wtc : far from being the "architectural icon" that some people claim. Just a regular-good tall building with a terrible and huge antenna/spire (I don´t mind that discussion, what matters is what it seems, and for me it looks like an antenna) that doesn't give any harmony to the whole.

Marina Bay is overrated ? I don't think it's praised all around the world. Most of the opinions I heard about it were that it's just too big and not all that interesting. The only good thing about it is the enormous terrace on top.